Teddy boy must have gone off his Lithium. If he wants to reduce his carbon foot print or any other life foot print he can do what I tell all these goofs to do; kill himself. He will be doing the earth a favor and the rest of us too.

I have a good-faith question for our friends who are bought into global warming: do y'all think this sort of alarmism -- I mean, this is really sui generis, I don't think that Gore or anyone near that level of credibility has made such claims -- is helpful to your cause? Eli?

I went to the same prep school that Ted did, he was a bit of a legend there, 10 years after he left.

When he was there it was a military school, and students were referred to by their last name and first initial, unless their name was Patton or Phillip or something like that. You did not want to be a teacher and say "I want to see Smith, P. in my office." But I digress.

The story was that a particularly stringent teacher came into Ted's dorm room and found the light on after lights out. "Turner, who is responsible for that lightbulb?" the teacher asked. Quick as a wink Ted replied "Edison, T. sir."

Sure enough, Edison, T. got 5 demerits the next morning. They never could find the guy though.

It's not an uncommon sentiment. Paul Theroux is on record in his travel books as believing that the poor will live a desperate life, rooting around landfills for food, and that the gated-community-dwelling rich will probably hunt them for sport.

Isn't he bipolar? If so I don't know if saying he's "become a deranged old man," is fair; he should be prone to say and do extreme things, regardless of age, and we should discount them accordingly... give him a little slack and not take him too seriously.

Not to defend, offend or recommend tt, because I don't get into the "show" for or against.

actually, when a person's corner of the world dries up, or floods, or goes up in flames, it feels like the whole world is caving in on you. Read the old testament. Lots of stories about that kind of thing. I guess professionals will never have these problems as there will always be more clients who will need your help after an initial chaos phase.

Or just imagine catastophes like Katrina. How some people were treated by our government might actually be about as cruel as cannibalism. I remember reading about one person who was clever to use the neighbors swimming pool water to flush his toilet. the whole time, I'm thinking but the sewage lines aren't working anyway!!!!

Sorry, for being sympathetic and/or pathetic here. I hate to admit when the Unabomber was arrested I was glad to see that at least his mother was at his side. I have come to recognize that many people call this pathetic trait liberalism. I have come to recognize it as mothering instinct in myself and nothing political at all. I just am sorry that the system preys on these instincts. I have realized that, and that's why I vote protest vote if none of the above is on the ballot. Mostly because we are too big and varied of a country to have my small ideals actualized. So I let you all decide better for the bigger you all.

As for global warming, I believe there is constantly shifting of arid and fertile lands. We can just hope that America remains as fertile as it has been over the vast majority of land because our farmers feed quite alot of people. And it brings in quite a bit of money to the country. Though I gotta admit the cow, bull and calf down the road at that small family farm do look happier than some of the ones I saw on huge places on the road. But in the end I guess they are all meat. And, I am not a vegetarian so I should be happy either way, right?

Simon, I object to your question. Buying in? What does that mean when you see observations that show warming over the past several decades? One has facts that support the idea that the Earth is warming, or one doesn't have facts.

But I do think alarmism, and the tendency of environmentalists everywhere to tie any environmental cause to Global Warming, is a bad thing.

On a serious note, what do you make of the fact that the US network of 3,000 deep ocean probes report that over the last 5 years ocean temps have not increased.

as for surface temps, isnt one of the issues there that our historical temp record over the last 100 years has been collected from sites that are now deeply surrounded by urban heat islands? and that fact accounts for the majority of the annecdotal heat rise examples? e.g NYC is on average x degrees hotter than it was in 1903, cause is has y million more people, asphalt and energy use?

and Ted is a Loon, he should unplug CNN as his contribution to global cooling. or not take his private jet to Davos next year to rant on global warming?

BTW: who is gonna decide which groups dont get to breed? hasnt worked well for the Maoists

Global climate has warmed, but as the natural warming and cooling cycle since time immemorial. Now we have plateaued and are heading downslope. The world ocean temps are considerably cooler than the long term average this spring. The solar cycle is weak and delayed. Let's spend our effort getting off oil because it is expensive and will one day run out along with returning our capacity to thumb our collective noses at the Chavez's of the world.

With all the really important issues in the world, you choose to post on something totally silly and irrelevant.

What about the difference between Coach and Prada? The problem between jeans, a pullover, and sports jacket versus shirt and tie? Running shoes versus loafers? Khakis versus men in shorts? Mini skirts versus baggy pants suits? Fishnet versus no hose? Double breasted suits versus single breasted?

Then there is the really important issue of the genuine dating problems of single people of a certain age- the over fifty crowd. Do people know who difficult it is to hook up with someone who is mature and intelligent? That is an important social cause!

How about the state of classical music, rock and roll, hip hop, and how they affect opera? That is important! Those are real issues.

Not the silliness like the alarmist global warming nuts. Man oh man. We are on the verge of a cultural and fashion rapture and people are only concerned about the fate of the planet and carbon foot prints!

The most disgusting part of Turner's comment is not his belief that it will get 8 degrees hotter but that he thinks humanity will crumble under the challenge. All that land in Canada and Russia ... will we not figure out how to grow food in a new way? Does global warming mean global drought?

MM, I was trying to find the most neutral wording possible, and apologize if I failed in that effort. I wanted to avoid implying that I take a position one way or another, or that any side of the debate is correct, because that isn't relevant to the question I was asking and I wanted to avoid it as an issue.

One of my neighbors told me that he wanted to move to the beach, but was afraid it would be underwater in a few years due to global warming. I managed not to laugh out loud and suggested he was more likely to lose his house to a hurricane. He's about 50 and getting his Master's degree--in social work--online--from Liberty University.

Something that people should keep in mind is that the science underpinning some of the numbers we've been bombarded with are junk.

A case in point are temperature readings from across the USA. 50+ years ago these temperature and weather sensors were put in areas without much development. But over time urbanization has come and many sensors are now in parking lots, next to buildings, next to the A/C exhaust of office buildings, etc.

IMO what we really have to be worried about is global cooling. You can grow crops in hot weather and even issues over water aren't insurmountable. But there is absolutely no way to grow crops in a field covered with ice. And right now the sun is dimmest it's been in a long time.

All that land in Canada and Russia ... will we not figure out how to grow food in a new way? Does global warming mean global drought?

There is the problem of getting sufficient moisture to where the crops grow. Central Canada and Russia are pretty far from good moisture sources. I'm sure there are low-moisture crops that will grow there, and if Turner's dire vision comes true, well our diets will have to change, but I agree that mankind if pretty adaptable.

Drill Sgt, I'm unfamiliar with the deep ocean probe temperature report you mention. As far as heat island effects, these are "supposed to be" accounted for in studies. Reviewers of articles can be very persnickety if they aren't. But there are measurements that show indisputable warming that aren't related to thermometer measurements, such as these data. Lake Ice data is also a good marker that shows significantly shorter ice seasons now relative to "long" ago.

Note that none of these things that show warming show a cause for the warming. It may be anthropogenic -- and there are certainly scientists who think it is. If it is anthropogenic, then serious decisions lie ahead for mankind because there is little being done now to ease the purported forcing of the anthropogenic warming, namely CO2 emissions.

Ted Turner is in a better position than most to actually do something about global warming. He can donate a billion or two right now to combat global warming and it's bad effects. I encourage him to put his money where his mouth is to save humanity. Put up or shut up, I say.

P.S. Ted should also spend a few million to fund another study to convince the many right-wing disbelievers to accept the fact of global warming and its ill effects.

P.P.S. In truth, those flat-earth society nuts wouldn't be convinced even if Mr. Turner spent every cent he had to convince them. They are inveterately stubborn and hopelessly selfish about what lay in store for future generations. Pity posterity for their egotistical pigheadedness.

Or just imagine catastophes like Katrina. How some people were treated by our government might actually be about as cruel as cannibalism. I remember reading about one person who was clever to use the neighbors swimming pool water to flush his toilet. the whole time, I'm thinking but the sewage lines aren't working anyway!!!!

*sigh* Another demonstration that mere ignorance doesn't stop anyone from having an opinion.

they put me on lithium once but it drove me crazy, that and the other drug I couldn't focus at all, my eyes couldn't see in the sun, and i was freakin afraid to tell anyone for fear that they might give me more drugs to make me better. I stopped taking everything. I must still have some dreamers disease. That or some crazy music in me.

I live secluded now and no one rarely comments directly to me. So I thank you for the wee bit of attention.

P.P.S. In truth, those flat-earth society nuts wouldn't be convinced even if Mr. Turner spent every cent he had to convince them. They are inveterately stubborn and hopelessly selfish about what lay in store for future generations. Pity posterity for their egotistical pigheadedness.

Didn't Ted Turner a few years ago make a trip to North Korea, and after being asked about the starvation happening there he made some comment like (paraphrasing) "Give 'em a break, they're riding bikes so they are thin."

A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays (M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007). Some researchers had suggested that the latter might influence global warming through an involvement in cloud formation.

“This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

Claims that the Sun, rather than raised levels of greenhouse gases, has been responsible for recent warming have persisted in a small number of scientists and in parts of the media. Mike Lockwood, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, UK, says he was “galvanized” to carry out the comprehensive study by misleading media reports. He cites ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle,’ a television programme shown in March by Britain’s Channel 4, as a prime example.

Together with Claus Frohlich of the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland, Lockwood brought together solar data for the past 100 years. The two researchers averaged out the 11-year solar cycles and looked for correlation between solar variation and global mean temperatures. Solar activity peaked between 1985 and 1987. Since then, trends in solar irradiance, sunspot number and cosmic-ray intensity have all been in the opposite direction to that required to explain global warming.

Paul Theroux is on record in his travel books as believing that the poor will live a desperate life, rooting around landfills for food, and that the gated-community-dwelling rich will probably hunt them for sport.

Not very sporting if they all congregate at the landfills. Kind of like baiting bears.

We have Americans living quite well in Yuma, Arizona where a daytime summer temp of 115F is common. We have Americans living above the Arctic Circle in Alaska. You Glow Ball Warming types sure are a bunch of wusses. The climate has been changing since the dawn of history and we have always adapted. The climate will continue to change. We will adapt. Well, except for modern Democrats. They will sit around waiting for government to save them. My kids are not modern Democrats. If it gets hotter, they'll move north. If it gets colder, they'll move south. Geeze.

Buying in? What does that mean when you see observations that show warming over the past several decades? One has facts that support the idea that the Earth is warming, or one doesn't have facts.

The past warming trend *supports* the idea that the Earth will continue to warm in the future, but it certainly doesn't establish it beyond any reasonable doubt. Multi-decade warming/cooling trends are nothing new; for example, the Earth cooled from the 1880s to the 1910s. That's one reason why the term "buy-in" is appropriate.

Let's say the yearly temperature was determined by God flipping a coin -- heads it goes up, tails it goes down. Over a 50-year period there's about a 30% chance that the number of heads and tails will differ by 7 or more, and about a 5% change that they'll differ by 14 or more. So you'll regularly see "warming trends" or "cooling trends" even if the temperature is entirely random.

This sort of millenarian craziness simply shines a spotlight on previous doomsayers, such as Paul Ehrlich, with his bold (not to say preternaturally stupid) prediction that most of us died in the 1970s and 1980s. Why the man is allowed out in public without people throwing rotten fruit at him is a circle I'll never square.

When I was in b-school, UCLA '87, Terrible Ted came to speak to one of our classes.

It was right after he'd bought MGM, then sold everything but the library. Everyone - out in the public - thought it was brilliant, because he'd basically gotten the library for free. His lawyer had told us different. He'd thought he could buy the studio and run it as a studio. He was going broke immediately, the studio cash flow was negative and huge. But he got lucky, when he'd sold enough to stay afloat he still had the library.

When he came to talk to us he said - with a straight face - that the world would be out of oil in 10 years. Just look at the proven reserves, and look at how fast we're using them.

The problem was we'd studied oil depletion as a lesson in microeconomics the week before. As oil is used, it becomes rare, and the price goes up. We'll NEVER run out. It will get too rare and expensive to turn into gasoline, but saying that we would run out in 10 years told us he was not that bright.

“This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

As far as heat island effects, these are "supposed to be" accounted for in studies.

Supposed to be...but generally not. Surfacestations.org actually goes out to surface stations, looks at the site, looks at the history of the site, then compares that to both the raw and "corrected" data. Here's an example of how well the GISS adjustments actually works:

Using a new database for all available land-based grid cells around the world we test the null hypothesis that the spatial pattern of temperature trends in a widely used gridded climate data set is independent of socioeconomic determinants of surface processes and data inhomogeneities. The hypothesis is strongly rejected (P = 7.1 × 10−14), indicating that extraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data.

The surface station record is hopelessly corrupted. Sea surface temperature, deep sea temperature recording, and especially satellite measurements are much better measures. And they 1) aren't showing dramatic warming (actually plateaued for the last decade), and 2) the *distribution* of warming between the surface and the atmosphere doesn't agree with the theory of AGW.

Reviewers of articles can be very persnickety if they aren't. But there are measurements that show indisputable warming that aren't related to thermometer measurements, such as these data. Lake Ice data is also a good marker that shows significantly shorter ice seasons now relative to "long" ago.

There is an *enormous* difference between saying that the earth has been warming during its recent history (since the end of little ice age, in fact) and saying that the warming we have recorded is due to human causes, specifically CO2 emissions.

Compare the rate of warming with the solar cycle; the peaks correlate very well with the 22 year Hale solar cycle:

Yeah, I can see the B-movie poster now... Jane Fonda being attacked by a swarm of bloodthirsty zombies. Over an apocalyptic desert landscape the narrator intones in an ominous voice: "It's the year 2052. The average daytime temperature has soared into the triple digits. Manhattan is flooded, yet no plants grow anywhere. America has become a vast wasteland of mindless Republicans who all want to eat your brains..."

A warming over decades won't create a sudden and specific acute crisis with a foreseeable end, which is the only sort of circumstance where emergency cannibalism makes sense, as taking advantage of an unconventional stockpiled food source. And institutional cannibalism only makes economic sense where more efficient livestock protein is unavailable; unlike the Aztecs or pre-contact New Guinea highlanders, we have pigs.

I'm beginning to agree with the conclusion of these recent studies gleefully circulated across the internet about Liberals being more cognitively facile than Conservatives. They do show a remarkable ability to leap on whatever band wagon goes trundling by, and from one to another, with superior ease. It's impossible to keep up.

Cannibals. Really. I'll start taking that seriously when the Food Network gets on with long-pig recipes. This upper upper upper economic strata that pays most America's taxes never tires. Here's what's at work; they occasionally feel pangs of guilt. Oh they know they deserve their wealth, but they also know that little in life is fair and they also know they don't deserve that much wealth. And they feel an obligation to do something meaningful with it. And this is the best they can do. I like them. What comes across as arrogance, I'm picking up as humility. Noblesse oblige and all of that.

You know, this Turner Classic Movies is really something. I've never appreciated old movies until they were explained so well. Just today I listened to Meryl Streep talk about how Bette Davis influenced her as a young girl and throughout her career. She delivered a very touching tribute with a couple of 'full circle' moments. I was moved. It helped me appreciate them both.

Related to climate change and food, last night I had a conversation with a SW Nebraska farmer. The phone call lasted about an hour. He grows high protein wheat and told me business is spectacular beyond his imaginings. He told me historically he never got more than 12.something a bushel but now it's through the roof. He caught me up about being able to buy another farm and updating his equipment. He went on about a new seeder, one that doesn't require the fields to be groomed along with other changes new technology and a flush of cash made possible. We talked about other commodity related investments not having to do with wheat but still having to do with prevailing attitudes about climate change on commodity investment if not actual change in climate that affected his concerns, like farmers in other areas turning their fields over to corn, which strikes both of us as kind of weird. So there's a good side to all this alarmist dialogue. We had a great time laughing our asses off the whole conversation. Cannibalism. You have to admit that's funny, wish I could have thrown that in.

But apparently it's not a serious enough problem to cause him to unplug CNN and TBS; cease his use of his several private aircraft, or rid the planet of the thousands of bison grazing and farting on his patch of land that extends nearly from Canada to Mexico.

Utter nonsense from a deranged old man who believes everything he hears himself say.

My rule: I believe that there may be a crisis only when those who are telling me there is a crisis actually start acting like it is a crisis.

Not only are we prone to cannibalism in hot weather. According to Mr. Turner, if American were under the thumb of an American Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis invaded to give us the freedom to choose our own government, we would act just like the Iraqi insurgents - like patriots. We would blow up Iraqis with roadside bombs. But much more often, we would blow up other Americans. Especially American women and children. Nothing shows true patriotism like blowing up a bunch of kids lined up to get candy or enjoying a pet market.

In Manhatten, Montana, there is a nice bar and steak house called Sir Scott's. I recommend it. The owner is a Vietnam vet, and he told us that Ted and Jane came in one night. Ted is a large landowner in the Bozeman area.The owner said he look at them, pointed at Ted and said, "You can stay, but she has to go." They both left. Somethings money can't buy.

The earliest published example of the Jane Fonda/Ted Turner variant, in which it is claimed that the incident took place at the Rocky Mountain Pasta Company in Bozeman, Montana, appeared in an unofficial summary of the Rush Limbaugh radio show dated April 10, 1996:

Rush says that's not the Unabomber's fault - it's people like Ted Turner who show up and buy thousands of acres for their buffalo ranches. Roxanne agrees, and she digresses to note that Turner and Jane Fonda have been kicked out of restaurants in Montana. Rush asks how this happened, and Roxanne says a law enforcement friend told her that Fonda and Turner went into the Rocky Mountain Pasta Company in Bozeman, MT and were a bit miffed that they weren't seated immediately. The hostess told them that they were booked up and that there was a wait for tables, so Fonda demanded to see the manager, asking, "Do you know who I am?!"

Rush notes this is really bad form for any sort of celebrity, and Roxanne agrees. The manager came out and he turned out to be a Vietnam veteran, so he wasn't pleased to see Fonda at all. He told her, "Yes, Miss Fonda, I know who you are and you are not welcome in my restaurant!"

A more recent variant includes a footnote claiming the incident actually occurred at Sir Scott's Oasis Steakhouse in Manhattan, Montana.

A variant of that variant says it was John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry who received their comeuppance at Sir Scott's Oasis Steakhouse, not Jane Fonda and Ted Turner.

It goes back to Malthus, if not further. Ancient Romans used to write about overpopulation.

d--

Oh, thanks, I should've been able to figure that out. I'm surprised it's not called the Frito-Lay School of Management at this point, or something. I think they turned Schoenberg Hall into Mariah Carey Hall....

Rocker 419 alludes to a strange hypocrisy: how can Ted simultaneously (1) foretell such doom and blame it on human consumption and carbon release, and also (2) found and cover the landscape with Ted's Montana Grill (http://www.tedsmontanagrill.com/)?

In addition to the general craziness, Ted is essentially arguing two things:

1. Due to global warming, the social structures of society will degenerate so much within 40 years that we will be eating one another and millions will die.

2. There will be no need in the foreseeable future for a military (since Russia and China aren't invading), so the US should just stop spending money on the military.

Now, it seems to me that he is ultra-alarmist on one hand, and incredibly blase on the other hand. Wouldn't it be prudent to keep up our military budget if in a few years millions will starve and presumably violently try to take whatever resources they can? BTW, China's military budget may be up to 20% of America's (not 2% as Ted says) and increasing by about 20% per year.

In America, some big species are having a population explosion; deer, bear and cougar. Ted Turner has nightmares about cannibals! Why should Americans eat each other when our fields and roads are filled with herds of venison?

I noticed that someone earlier in the thread mentioned the recent Frolich study, that attempted to show how unimportant the sun is in global warming.

This result is idiotic on its face, so I won't fault anyone for not bothering to read this "study". But if you do bother to read it, you'll note that the authors state (with no supporting evidence) that the thermal inertia of the oceans is trivial, and can be ignored.

This thermal inertia results in a 10 to 15 year time lag between a thermal impetus and its resultant change in temperature: The oceans are just so damned big that it takes 10 years to change their temperature. This is simple physics.

Then the authors look at just the last 11 years, after dismissing an effect that would completely wash out this data, and claim that the sun's diminished output over that period hasn't decreased temperature.

I swear, I think that this field of climatology is populated by people who flunked out of physics and chemistry. These people are hacks.

Pastafarian said..."I noticed that someone earlier in the thread mentioned the recent Frolich study, that attempted to show how unimportant the sun is in global warming."

I think that's just an unfortunate bit of imprecise wording on their part. I don't think anyone denies that the sun is responsible for global "warming" where "warming" is defined as deviation from the mean temperature of interstellar space. They mean that the sun isn't responsible for global "warming" where "warming" is defined as deviation from the normal temperature of the Earth. Of course, it doesn't take a doctorate to see the question being begged there...

How crazy is he really? Lets see.Today this minute - gasoline has hit an all time record high price - ditto oil - Rice (the food not the secretary) has hit an all time record high - the Philipines and Indonesia have an export ban in place - they don't want any of their rice going into your gas tank - Wheat is also at an all time high - Corn is at a record all time high -I don't shop much so have any of you smart people noticed the price of Rice Wheat or Corn Chex rocketing up? - Just as well because we soon won't be able to afford milk since happy cows need corn - You tell me. What happens when the government mandates the burning of crops? You think a certain part of the population won;t turn to canibalism? Are you so stupid that you can't see there are people who are starving today? Forget 30 or 40 years from now.

Maybe some of you are independantly wealthy - you don't care how much that loaf of whole grain costs at the health food store, you got a trust fund. Guess what? Most of us don't.We are hungry and you look plump. You Better Think This Global Warming Issue Over Really Carefully. Like Your Life Depended on it.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why it is that many of us are so comfortable? Perhaps it has to do with a little something called capitalism, also known as liberty?

If you were really concerned with the welfare of the poor, you'd be looking at removing the obstacles to wealth creation. But no, the apostles of Al Gore are screaming for MORE government power, more erosion of freedom, to make us ALL poorer.

Methinks your true motives are showing.

I'd suggest that you consider learning the nature and purpose of freedom, because unlike the phantom danger of climate change, your life DOES depend on it.

Magnum, wow, that is the most amazing correlational graph I have ever seen. TIGHT!

I appreciate your adding some data to the conversation, and I enjoy the chance to dust off my graduate stats knowledge. It gets dusty from neglect. But mainly, I could not allow your contribution to go by without comment.

Thanks for adding some data.

Oh, and Pastafarian, hat tip to you too! Dismissing thermal inertia of the oceans is idiocy. I appreciate your pointing it out.

I have noted, that in many discussions online, hard data is completely ignored and actively avoided. The most famous case in my memory, is when Glen Beck was savaged for attributing a conservatively principled quote about the poor and poverty to Benjamin Franklin.

The original poster called Beck a liar, as did the next five comments. Then someone spent 5 minutes on Google and provided the very similar actual quote and reference.

The savaging of Beck continued unabated! Clearly, to some, facts are immaterial. Once that is established, I find it to ignore the posters as so much puffery.

Those of us with critical thinking skills have. It is not an issue of whether there is warming or cooling. It is an issue as to the cause- carbon, that is a joke- and the ridiculous claims of immediate Armageddon and Apocalypse of something is not done right now. That something being making billionaires out of Al Gore and his evil special interest pals.

Ted Turner is one of the least intelligent men I've ever seen in action - listening to him talk makes my ears bleed!

And as the previous poster says, the earth's temp has remained stable for the past 10 years! Global warming is a scam perpetrated on the gullible moonbats of the world by the inventor of the Internet, Albert Gore, Jr., asshat extraordinaire!

The current cold trend correlates with the trough in solar activity. This correlation has been observed before, on larger scales. The mechanism is not understood, solar luminance doesn't change that much. Current hypothesis is that when the sun becomes less active, the heliosphere lets more cosmic rays strike Earths' atmosphere, promoting lower level cloud formation, which increases Earths' albedo.

If NASA is right, I expect the cooling trend to continue until early 2009. If solar cycle 24 turns out to be weak, then I start to worry about another minimum.